UNITECH LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 25 -8 -2008 passed in ST/221/2008 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the CESTAT') under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to service tax appeals as per the provisions of Section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.

(2.) THE assessee is aggrieved by virtue of the fact that even though it was a recipient of taxable services of the nature of architectural services from a nonresident, viz., Callison Architecture Inc., USA, it was called upon to pay service tax in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The service tax demanded from the assessee is an amount of Rs. 1,83,10,592 on an amount of Rs. 22,61,54,796 paid to Callison Architecture Inc., USA.

(3.) THE assessee before us is aggrieved by the fact that its liability to pay service tax has been confirmed by the CESTAT with respect to the period 1 -1 -2005 to 15 -6 -2005. The learned Counsel for the assessee submits that service tax is being paid by the assessee with effect from 15 -6 -2005. It is, however, the contention of the assessee that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court passed in [Writ Petition No. 1449/2006, dated 11 -12 -2008] entitled Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India, [2009] 18 STT 212 it stands declared that the revenue can collect tax only upon being invested with due legal authority; an event which occurred on the insertion of Section 66A in the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 18 -4 -2006 by virtue of the Finance Act, 2006.